So a virtual corpse puppet?
Thanks for sharing; I thought this was a fascinating read, especially since it ended on a positive note and not pure condemnation. It seems totally Black Mirror-esque, but I do wonder how many of the commentators here attacking it didn’t read the article. The family obviously didn’t make this decision lightly, given how much work it took to create it, and even the judge appreciated the novel approach. This is probably one of the best-case use scenarios relative to the abyss of unstoppable horror that awaits us.
Perhaps; it seemed like they knew the decedent well enough to know that he would appreciate this, from everything that the article says. With that said, I also won’t be surprised if templates for wills or living trusts add a no-duplication statement by default over the coming years.
If my family hired an actor to impersonate me at my killer’s trial and give a prepared speech about how I felt about the situation it would be thrown out of court.
If my family hired a cartoonist or movie studio to create a moving scene with my face recreated by digital artists and a professional voice actor to talk about my forgiveness for my death, it would be thrown out of court.
That they used a generative program to do it and the Judge allowed the video to influence the sentence as if it were a statement by the deceased is deeply troubling.
Reminds me of the crime skeleton, shout out to anyone who knows what I’m talking about.
Who could forget truly an inventionbefore it’s time.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/criminal-confession-skeleton-patent
That should never be allowed in court. What a crock of shit.
It was a victim impact statement, not subject to the rules of evidence. The shooter had already been found guilty, and this was an impact statement from the victim’s sister, to sway how the shooter should be sentenced. The victim’s bill of rights says that victims should be allowed to choose the method in which they make an impact statement, and his sister chose the AI video.
I agree that it shouldn’t be admissible as evidence. But that’s not really what’s being discussed here, because it wasn’t being used as evidence. The shooter was already found guilty.
